No I don't. I either need Apple to get its head out of its ass, or to vote with my dollars and buy something I'd actually use. Going out of my way to support Apple's OS, which they barely support on their own hardware, and to circumvent their random SMC half-assed secure boot nonsense is doing extra work that I don't need to be doing.
But even still, Apple's never going to learn that lesson because Apple doesn't sell PCs anymore. They sell shitty appliances that break and go out of date every year, because they know you'll just keep coming back to them for more.
These days phone chips have TDPs running around 8-10W, like Exynos 5250's 8W max TDP. If you look at perf/watt at the top end, Intel's chips are still very securely in the lead.
Yeah, the ARM chips can still clock down way lower, but throwing around numbers like 0.2W max is just being disingenuous.
Or install Linux, since it's free and you can continue using your existing hardware. Then you can just virtualize and continue using your XP license in a nice, safe cocoon.
How is it that every time someone talks about electric cars cost, they always neglect the sales incentives - federal tax credits, state tax credits, etc.
No, they just go by raw numbers, which are intentionally set where they are to maximize the company's profits in light of said credits existing.
Remove those from the price, and the Fiat 500e is roughly $3k more expensive than the regular 500, which shouldn't surprise you since that's about the difference an electric power train costs. Rerun your math and you find it's far easier to break even.
What they DO NOT DO is show that this hybrid system would be effective in a real organism, as opposed to a petri dish. I am going to bet that once you get this puppy inside the bloodstream, all hell is going to break loose via the immune system and create a bunch of untoward side effects.
According to MIT's Press Release (and their published works): "Most of the tests reported in this study were done in human and animal cells cultured in the lab, but the researchers also tested DRACO in mice infected with the H1N1 influenza virus. When mice were treated with DRACO, they were completely cured of the infection. The tests also showed that DRACO itself is not toxic to mice."
This may not pan out to being the panacea promised, but it certainly does work inside of animals. There are tons of questions about how such a drug should be used if it were to become available and pass testing, whether it should be reserved for viruses that will kill you very quickly, or whether it should be prescribed to keep people missing work from a cold or flu, but the fact is, there's something worth researching here.
And it's not like MIT's not going to publish the biggest claim they possibly can to draw in as much research funding as possible for this, even if it does turn out to only be effective against a handful of virus types, or if it does just kill the host organism or a incredibly significant portion of their remaining cells, re-releasing viruses into their systems in the case of long-term virus infections such as Herpes or HIV.
Still, the researchers are right that there's not a lot of hope the viruses have resistance-wise, as there's nothing for them to actively select around. The viruses that could survive this kind of onslaught are ones that can deliver a payload while remaining an intact virus, which would require some kind of in-virus payload replication, which would make it... you know.. not a virus anymore, some kind of protobacteria. We just wonder if the host can also survive the damage wrought by this drug.
If you had read your own link, you'd realize that it in no way invalidates the assertion that cats and humans are the only animals born deaf. It simply states that pearl-coated dogs are likely to inherit a degenerative neural disease which kills the auditory neurons during their lifetime; they are born with fully-to-partially functional hearing.
Still, it seems incredibly unlikely that only humans and cats are born deaf.
It is likely that Apple uses Adobe's Open Source Media Framework to develop their plugins.
In this case, you're completely wrong. Apple has its own complete PDF stack which is used from its display server (Quartz, which is itself derived from Display PDF) up; the advantage is that you can dump a PDF from basically anywhere (what's on screen if it isn't 3D, offscreen widgets, etc) and print that exactly to your documentation, etc. It would make less than no sense for Apple to license Adobe's code, since it would be a complete duplication of something already in their software stack.
Yeah, all several hundred billion pieces of it, after it smacks into the ocean. If the plane retains even a small fraction of the velocity it picks up in the test flight before impact, it's a goner.
GStreamer on Linux, QuickTime on OS X, or DirectShow on Windows
Or, GStreamer on Linux, OS X and Windows, since GStreamer supports playback through QuickTime and DirectShow natively. Why code for three frameworks when one portable one does everything you need?
Marvel vs Capcom, as another example. But really, these types of games tend to be really fun. It's a shame IP law has made them more or less impossible to do correctly without someone bitching about their rights being trampled over.
Now they're doing the right thing and we get news how they refuse to patch the systems which.dll files have been damaged? Welcome to slashdot.
Why is not patching the system acceptable? Shouldn't it just determine if the DLL was damaged and replace it with the correct, working patched version if it is? Sorry, but automatically throwing their hands up and saying "you're fucked" is the Microsoft shortcut for not being able to fix their own security problems.
Well first of all, since it makes no sense for me to reiterate them here: wtfjs
Secondly, Prototype-based OO is quite ugly. Sure, it's workable, and you can argue that it's the more pure way to do OO as it emphasizes object orientation and encapsulates better, however, any way you try to sugar coat it, Javascript makes it a lot uglier than it needs to be.
Thirdly, the fact that it's a defacto standardized language, a lot like the web itself was defacto'd into existence rather than people trying to follow standards (which came later), each implementation is different enough that what will work in one does not necessarily work in another. While this is a lot better today than it used to be, there are still places where this is really rough.
Still, you can point out flaws and inconsistencies in any language, but the web-related technologies tend to be a lot more, well let's call them "special" (just to make them feel better).
Well you are definitely right in that you don't follow: "what is the smallest unit then" "it depends on what we're talking about." Planck areas or volumes would be much smaller than 10^-44.
...And the runtime environment has millions of lines of #ifdef __LINUX__,...
Whether you hide behind a runtime is entirely irrelevant. Because the APIs differ between OSes, somewhere, someone had to write some nasty sticky portability shims.
Sure it's completely "unchanged" on every platform. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a million lines of ifdef'd code. It's just the code doesn't do anything on the platforms where it's not needed. There are vast number of portable libraries and a somewhat smaller number of applications that do just this, having platform specific code conditionally compiled in.
Anyways, I fully suspect this guy's "solution" will be something like "We just used Flash and embedded it into these application 'runtime' thingablobs and then it was simply a matter of loading up the platform agnostic swf file." "Wait, what about the source code?" "Here's the source to the Reversi game. ahahaha did you seriously think we'd open source a runtime that'd put half of us out of a job???"
Voting with your wallet doesn't work anymore anyways, not sense companies learned that they can blame some phantom nemesis on the reason they can't make sales and get 'bailed out'.
One obvious reason I can think of is because you don't want to miss "File", and accidentally click on "Close" instead.
On my layout, which is similar to the ones in the screenshot, the X is somewhere between "Edit" and "View". To miss either of these and hit the X would be significantly less likely than trying to grab a corner and hitting the X; I know this from both my own experiences, from pixel distances, from the interface highlighting menu items on mouse-in and from Fitts' law which states that items within a window are more likely to be hit precisely since the user need to pay more attention to hitting it, rather than corners, where users are more often less attentive and would rather "ram" their mouse to the right position.
Uh... guess where the Close Window button in OS X is?..
On the correct side of the window, but in the incorrect position. However, with the button being red and expose, the likelihood you'd accidentally hit it is significantly diminished from, say, Windows.
The problem is that there isn't a good pick for most commonly used window management element, because it's the same as the most destructive - the close window button.
According to Fitts' law, the corners of the screen and the corners of the windows should have the most significant function, and the user will experience fatigue with components that are a) further away from these corners and b) further away from each other. This is why you will see interfaces such as "The Sims"-interface with all of the buttons, menus and readable information clustered in exactly one area of the screen.
This should be the same on modern desktops. The application menu should be at one corner, as should the window controls and the window's "main menus". Keeping them together means the mouse doesn't have to go flailing across the whole screen to do simple actions such as saving a file or hiding a window. It greatly reduces fatigue and RSI.
Like the corners of the screen, the corners of the window are just as important, and should not default to destructive operations, since the corner is the easiest to hit. Unfortunately, that's exactly what it does right now.
I've used the setting that Ubuntu is adopting as default for as long as I can remember using metacity, and I cannot remember the last time I've accidentally closed a window in Linux. However it wasn't even a day ago when I accidentally closed an incomplete document while trying to resize the window on Windows 7. Think back to how many times you've screamed at yourself for e.g. accidentally closing a Firefox window (back before they had "Undo close window ", which they only needed because of this interface bug).
The window controls are precisely where they should be.
First, which side of the window, and for that matter the screen, are all of the menus on? That's right, the left-hand side. So why would you want to have to move your mouse a thousand pixels to close a window?
Second, what is the most destructive operation you can perform on a window? Closing it. Why on earth are you beating your users over the head by putting the most destructive operation that close to the corner? When it's on the corner, it's much easier to hit by accident, for example when reaching to resize the window. This has happened time and again with me on Windows to the point of absolute fury
What's the least destructive operation that still gets the window out of your line of sight? Minimize. If you hit it on accident, it takes you maybe a few hundred pixels to reach down, or up if you're like me, to restore the window. Unlike if it's closed by accident, which can take minutes to restore if it was a large networked word processing file.
Every Mac user can immediately appreciate the position of the window controls, if they use them at all. They are clearly colored for improved accuracy, they're out of the way, and what's even better, you usually don't have to use them, since OS X's Expose is so much more convenient, even more so than Compiz, anyways. The only reason not to switch is because of existing Windows users, and we stated a long time ago that Ubuntu isn't Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
> You really need to get a hackintosh
No I don't. I either need Apple to get its head out of its ass, or to vote with my dollars and buy something I'd actually use. Going out of my way to support Apple's OS, which they barely support on their own hardware, and to circumvent their random SMC half-assed secure boot nonsense is doing extra work that I don't need to be doing.
But even still, Apple's never going to learn that lesson because Apple doesn't sell PCs anymore. They sell shitty appliances that break and go out of date every year, because they know you'll just keep coming back to them for more.
Because when you try to fix it, you get a slashdot article posted with a hundred people saying how "you should go die in a fire."
These days phone chips have TDPs running around 8-10W, like Exynos 5250's 8W max TDP. If you look at perf/watt at the top end, Intel's chips are still very securely in the lead.
Yeah, the ARM chips can still clock down way lower, but throwing around numbers like 0.2W max is just being disingenuous.
Or install Linux, since it's free and you can continue using your existing hardware. Then you can just virtualize and continue using your XP license in a nice, safe cocoon.
How is it that every time someone talks about electric cars cost, they always neglect the sales incentives - federal tax credits, state tax credits, etc. No, they just go by raw numbers, which are intentionally set where they are to maximize the company's profits in light of said credits existing. Remove those from the price, and the Fiat 500e is roughly $3k more expensive than the regular 500, which shouldn't surprise you since that's about the difference an electric power train costs. Rerun your math and you find it's far easier to break even.
That's unfortunate. They looked at AGG as literally the example of what *not* to standardize because of it's horrendous usage of templates.
What they DO NOT DO is show that this hybrid system would be effective in a real organism, as opposed to a petri dish. I am going to bet that once you get this puppy inside the bloodstream, all hell is going to break loose via the immune system and create a bunch of untoward side effects.
According to MIT's Press Release (and their published works): "Most of the tests reported in this study were done in human and animal cells cultured in the lab, but the researchers also tested DRACO in mice infected with the H1N1 influenza virus. When mice were treated with DRACO, they were completely cured of the infection. The tests also showed that DRACO itself is not toxic to mice."
This may not pan out to being the panacea promised, but it certainly does work inside of animals. There are tons of questions about how such a drug should be used if it were to become available and pass testing, whether it should be reserved for viruses that will kill you very quickly, or whether it should be prescribed to keep people missing work from a cold or flu, but the fact is, there's something worth researching here.
And it's not like MIT's not going to publish the biggest claim they possibly can to draw in as much research funding as possible for this, even if it does turn out to only be effective against a handful of virus types, or if it does just kill the host organism or a incredibly significant portion of their remaining cells, re-releasing viruses into their systems in the case of long-term virus infections such as Herpes or HIV.
Still, the researchers are right that there's not a lot of hope the viruses have resistance-wise, as there's nothing for them to actively select around. The viruses that could survive this kind of onslaught are ones that can deliver a payload while remaining an intact virus, which would require some kind of in-virus payload replication, which would make it... you know.. not a virus anymore, some kind of protobacteria. We just wonder if the host can also survive the damage wrought by this drug.
If you had read your own link, you'd realize that it in no way invalidates the assertion that cats and humans are the only animals born deaf. It simply states that pearl-coated dogs are likely to inherit a degenerative neural disease which kills the auditory neurons during their lifetime; they are born with fully-to-partially functional hearing.
Still, it seems incredibly unlikely that only humans and cats are born deaf.
This is the iPhone we're talking about, how'd you manage to get a signal in the first place!?
(Must have one of those Vulcan pinch phone holders...)
It is likely that Apple uses Adobe's Open Source Media Framework to develop their plugins.
In this case, you're completely wrong. Apple has its own complete PDF stack which is used from its display server (Quartz, which is itself derived from Display PDF) up; the advantage is that you can dump a PDF from basically anywhere (what's on screen if it isn't 3D, offscreen widgets, etc) and print that exactly to your documentation, etc. It would make less than no sense for Apple to license Adobe's code, since it would be a complete duplication of something already in their software stack.
Shame it's Patent Pending.
Yeah, all several hundred billion pieces of it, after it smacks into the ocean. If the plane retains even a small fraction of the velocity it picks up in the test flight before impact, it's a goner.
GStreamer on Linux, QuickTime on OS X, or DirectShow on Windows
Or, GStreamer on Linux, OS X and Windows, since GStreamer supports playback through QuickTime and DirectShow natively. Why code for three frameworks when one portable one does everything you need?
The new indicator widgets are wide and don't seem to re-orient vertically,
That's not GNOME, that's Canonical. And there's a simple solution: don't use it. Just remove it and everything will go back to normal.
Marvel vs Capcom, as another example. But really, these types of games tend to be really fun. It's a shame IP law has made them more or less impossible to do correctly without someone bitching about their rights being trampled over.
Now they're doing the right thing and we get news how they refuse to patch the systems which .dll files have been damaged? Welcome to slashdot.
Why is not patching the system acceptable? Shouldn't it just determine if the DLL was damaged and replace it with the correct, working patched version if it is? Sorry, but automatically throwing their hands up and saying "you're fucked" is the Microsoft shortcut for not being able to fix their own security problems.
Well first of all, since it makes no sense for me to reiterate them here: wtfjs
Secondly, Prototype-based OO is quite ugly. Sure, it's workable, and you can argue that it's the more pure way to do OO as it emphasizes object orientation and encapsulates better, however, any way you try to sugar coat it, Javascript makes it a lot uglier than it needs to be.
Thirdly, the fact that it's a defacto standardized language, a lot like the web itself was defacto'd into existence rather than people trying to follow standards (which came later), each implementation is different enough that what will work in one does not necessarily work in another. While this is a lot better today than it used to be, there are still places where this is really rough.
Still, you can point out flaws and inconsistencies in any language, but the web-related technologies tend to be a lot more, well let's call them "special" (just to make them feel better).
Well you are definitely right in that you don't follow: "what is the smallest unit then" "it depends on what we're talking about." Planck areas or volumes would be much smaller than 10^-44.
Depends on what we're talking about. Probably Planck units is about the best we can do, so starting with ~10^-100-ish would be a good first guess.
...And the runtime environment has millions of lines of #ifdef __LINUX__, ...
Whether you hide behind a runtime is entirely irrelevant. Because the APIs differ between OSes, somewhere, someone had to write some nasty sticky portability shims.
Sure it's completely "unchanged" on every platform. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a million lines of ifdef'd code. It's just the code doesn't do anything on the platforms where it's not needed. There are vast number of portable libraries and a somewhat smaller number of applications that do just this, having platform specific code conditionally compiled in.
Anyways, I fully suspect this guy's "solution" will be something like "We just used Flash and embedded it into these application 'runtime' thingablobs and then it was simply a matter of loading up the platform agnostic swf file." "Wait, what about the source code?" "Here's the source to the Reversi game. ahahaha did you seriously think we'd open source a runtime that'd put half of us out of a job???"
Voting with your wallet doesn't work anymore anyways, not sense companies learned that they can blame some phantom nemesis on the reason they can't make sales and get 'bailed out'.
One obvious reason I can think of is because you don't want to miss "File", and accidentally click on "Close" instead.
On my layout, which is similar to the ones in the screenshot, the X is somewhere between "Edit" and "View". To miss either of these and hit the X would be significantly less likely than trying to grab a corner and hitting the X; I know this from both my own experiences, from pixel distances, from the interface highlighting menu items on mouse-in and from Fitts' law which states that items within a window are more likely to be hit precisely since the user need to pay more attention to hitting it, rather than corners, where users are more often less attentive and would rather "ram" their mouse to the right position.
Uh... guess where the Close Window button in OS X is?..
On the correct side of the window, but in the incorrect position. However, with the button being red and expose, the likelihood you'd accidentally hit it is significantly diminished from, say, Windows.
The problem is that there isn't a good pick for most commonly used window management element, because it's the same as the most destructive - the close window button.
According to Fitts' law, the corners of the screen and the corners of the windows should have the most significant function, and the user will experience fatigue with components that are a) further away from these corners and b) further away from each other. This is why you will see interfaces such as "The Sims"-interface with all of the buttons, menus and readable information clustered in exactly one area of the screen.
This should be the same on modern desktops. The application menu should be at one corner, as should the window controls and the window's "main menus". Keeping them together means the mouse doesn't have to go flailing across the whole screen to do simple actions such as saving a file or hiding a window. It greatly reduces fatigue and RSI.
Like the corners of the screen, the corners of the window are just as important, and should not default to destructive operations, since the corner is the easiest to hit. Unfortunately, that's exactly what it does right now.
I've used the setting that Ubuntu is adopting as default for as long as I can remember using metacity, and I cannot remember the last time I've accidentally closed a window in Linux. However it wasn't even a day ago when I accidentally closed an incomplete document while trying to resize the window on Windows 7. Think back to how many times you've screamed at yourself for e.g. accidentally closing a Firefox window (back before they had "Undo close window ", which they only needed because of this interface bug).
The window controls are precisely where they should be.
First, which side of the window, and for that matter the screen, are all of the menus on? That's right, the left-hand side. So why would you want to have to move your mouse a thousand pixels to close a window?
Second, what is the most destructive operation you can perform on a window? Closing it. Why on earth are you beating your users over the head by putting the most destructive operation that close to the corner? When it's on the corner, it's much easier to hit by accident, for example when reaching to resize the window. This has happened time and again with me on Windows to the point of absolute fury
What's the least destructive operation that still gets the window out of your line of sight? Minimize. If you hit it on accident, it takes you maybe a few hundred pixels to reach down, or up if you're like me, to restore the window. Unlike if it's closed by accident, which can take minutes to restore if it was a large networked word processing file.
Every Mac user can immediately appreciate the position of the window controls, if they use them at all. They are clearly colored for improved accuracy, they're out of the way, and what's even better, you usually don't have to use them, since OS X's Expose is so much more convenient, even more so than Compiz, anyways. The only reason not to switch is because of existing Windows users, and we stated a long time ago that Ubuntu isn't Windows.